Cost-effectiveness of deep brain stimulation versus treatment as usual for obsessive-compulsive disorder

Background: Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but requires expensive medical procedures. To date, no study has examined the cost-effectiveness of DBS for OCD. Objective: To perform the first economic evaluation of DBS for therapy refractory OCD. Methods: We conducted a 2-year prospective, open cost-effectiveness study, comparing DBS (n = 17) with treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 11), with cost per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year (QALY) as outcome measure. Apart from the base-case, or primary analysis, we conducted two practice-based scenarios: (1) standard care scenario, without research and innovation costs, and (2) rechargeable scenario, in which we assume the use of a rechargeable battery. Base-case and both scenarios were extrapolated to four years to estimate long-term cost-effectiveness. Results: Compared to TAU, DBS provides an additional 0.26 QALY (SD = 0.16). Median cost per QALY gained is estimated at 141,446 for base-case, 115,916 for standard care and 65,394 for the rechargeable scenario. Extending the time-horizon to four years results in a median cost per QALY of 80,313 for base-case, sic69,287 for standard care, and turned out to be cost-saving at sic 4678 per QALY for the rechargeable scenario. Assuming a willingness to pay threshold of sic 80,000/QALY, DBS, under base case and standard care had 25% and 35% probability of being more cost-effective than TAU. With the rechargeable scenario and in all scenarios extrapolated to four years, the probability of cost-effectiveness was equal or higher than TAU. Conclusions: This study indicates DBS for OCD is cost-effective in the long-term, especially. when rechargeable batteries are taken into account. (C) 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.